“Oh, Orn. How very coy and uninteresting. You know exactly what I'm asking, but that's okay. If you want to reject the hypothetical to avoid the conclusion, what can I do?” – Aaron
Sorry Aaron, your omniscience is broken on this one. I do not know exactly what you are asking let alone said ‘conclusion’. But, as you say, that’s ok. And all of this after your agreement with me! Oh, well. Truth is that many times, current example included, I see people make sweeping statements about their views, asking rhetorical questions which are tacitly based upon some sort of internal ‘truth’ that is not obvious to the rest of us. I wish that it were. On Oct 5, 9:41 am, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh, Orn. How very coy and uninteresting. You know exactly what I'm > asking, but that's okay. If you want to reject the hypothetical to > avoid the conclusion, what can I do? I agree with Sam Harris that not > all religions and superstitions have the same affects on society. I > personally would rather live in a society dominated by modern > Christianity than by the Christianity of 500 years ago - or by even > modern Islam. > > Is modern Christianity preferable to the kinds of superstitions that > would likely dominate society without it? I think it's an interesting > question despite the ambiguity. Surely others agree. I hope to hear > from them soon. > > Aaron > > On Oct 5, 11:14 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Suppose there is a kind of "baseline" irrationality to humans - a > > "superstition" index that doesn't change much. An individual may not > > need it, but a well-organized society must provide an outlet for this > > deep-seated impulse. Are strong Churches (especially the moderate > > ones) better for society than the widespread acceptance of New Age woo- > > woo, dangerous pseudoscience and all the other superstitions and > > belief systems that rush in to fill the void left by traditional > > religion? > > Does it affect the strategy of organizations like MFA?” – Aaron > > > First, I seriously doubt that any sort of ‘baseline’ or ‘superstition > > index’ could be agreed upon. > > Secondly, clearly ‘we’ (“a well-organized society”) not only must > > provide but DO provide avenues of expression around these issues. > > Since it IS, clearly it is ‘needed’. > > The attempt to compare and or separate churches, strong or otherwise > > with/to new age views, many of which are not new, let alone whatever > > ‘dangerous pseudoscience’ means will always be subjective and not > > agreed upon. If you doubt that, try it even here in such a limited in > > number and narrow channeled view of people. > > Yet again, when one (you Aaron in this case) use the term ‘better’, a > > value judgment for which I don’t know what sort of foundation you have > > for any sort of ethos like this yet, the result will be subjective. > > As for ‘strategy’, I would suggest a clear and full agreement by > > members on exactly these topics before any change in strategy is > > attempted. > > > On Oct 5, 7:59 am, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it. > > > Agent K: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals > > > and you know it... > > > -Men in Black > > > > I think Taylor and Orn's criticisms are on the money. The study does > > > not support Hemingway's conclusions. The column does highlight an > > > interesting quirk among people of faith. They don't see religion as a > > > form of superstition. I recall my High School English teacher saying > > > something about "religion and other superstitions" once. I > > > immediately objected, "Religion isn't a superstition!" "Yes, it is." > > > That rocked my world. Of course it is. > > > > But think of it this way. Suppose there is a kind of "baseline" > > > irrationality to humans - a "superstition" index that doesn't change > > > much. An individual may not need it, but a well-organized society > > > must provide an outlet for this deep-seated impulse. Are strong > > > Churches (especially the moderate ones) better for society than the > > > widespread acceptance of New Age woo-woo, dangerous pseudoscience and > > > all the other superstitions and belief systems that rush in to fill > > > the void left by traditional religion? > > > > Does it affect the strategy of organizations like MFA? > > > > Aaron- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
